Latest news with #Democrat-appointed
Atlantic
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Republicans Might Regret Putting Emil Bove on the Bench
Donald Trump got his man. On Tuesday, the Senate voted to confirm Emil Bove, the president's former criminal-defense lawyer, to a lifetime appointment as a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. During his brief tenure as a top Justice Department official, Bove behaved like someone who still believed that the president was his client: directing political purges, pushing out employees who refused to carry out unethical orders, and allegedly urging subordinates to defy court rulings that constrained Trump's agenda. But Trump and his allies might come to regret appointing such a transparent partisan to the federal bench. A few weeks ago, a group of former Justice Department lawyers, including me, asked to meet with Republican senators to discuss the Bove nomination. We all had worked on prosecutions related to January 6; several members of the group were among the roughly two dozen lawyers whom Bove had fired for precisely that reason. Our argument was that even Republican senators eager to push the judiciary to the right should, out of their own self-interest, vote against confirming Bove. Unfortunately, staff for just one senator, Chuck Grassley, agreed to meet with us. Most offices never even responded. Because they were unwilling to hear us in private, I will make our argument in public. Quinta Jurecic: Emil Bove is a sign of the times Since he first took office, in 2017, Trump has maintained the support of Senate Republicans in part through a simple bargain: They put up with his obvious unfitness for office, and in exchange, he appoints reliably conservative judges to the federal courts. But by appointing Bove—whose only apparent loyalty is to his own ambition, not to any particular legal philosophy—the GOP might have limited its own ability to appoint judges in the future. This is because the president typically gets to appoint new judges only when old ones die, retire, or move into the quasi-retirement position of 'senior status.' And some judges, even conservative ones who would otherwise be happy to let a Republican president pick their replacement, are likely to delay their retirement rather than hand Trump the opportunity to make more Bove-style appointments. The evidence suggests that this is already happening. Many federal judges time their retirement based on which party is in power: Democrat-appointed judges are likelier to retire when a Democrat is president, Republican-appointed judges when a Republican is. So far through Trump's second term, however, conservative judges aren't retiring at the pace they typically do. An analysis by Bloomberg Law found that 26 judicial seats opened up from the beginning of the year through the first five months of Trump's first term, as did 57 judicial seats during the same period of Joe Biden's presidency. By contrast, through June 1 of his second term, Trump gained just 16 vacancies to fill. Ursula Ungaro, a retired judge appointed by George W. Bush, told Bloomberg Law that she'd heard a 'hint or two' that her former peers 'would stay beyond their eligibility for senior status to see what happens toward the end of the Trump administration.' From the October 2024 issue: The judges who serve at Trump's pleasure Even before Bove's appointment, then, judges seem to have been worried about the type of person Trump would appoint to replace them. During Trump's first term, they had likely been assuaged by the fact that the president relied on leaders of the conservative legal movement, especially the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo, to help make his judicial picks. No longer. Frustrated that judges he appointed have occasionally ruled against his administration, Trump now calls Leo a 'real 'sleazebag'' who 'probably hates America.' The president evidently feels free to pick his own judges, and he is picking people like Bove. Bove is not the kind of lawyer that a traditionally conservative judge would want to be replaced by. He oversaw a purge of January 6 prosecutors despite the fact that he had once eagerly worked on January 6 cases himself. He pushed out career lawyers who refused to go along with an obviously unethical order to drop the corruption prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. And, according to two whistleblowers, he urged government lawyers to ignore a federal court order halting deportation flights. Bove allegedly told subordinates that they would need to consider telling judges 'fuck you' if courts ordered the government to stop. As a practicing lawyer and former prosecutor, I find this astonishing. I have never heard a colleague or opposing counsel propose to ignore a court order; it runs counter to our entire profession. For judges who care about the rule of law, even very conservative ones, Bove's conduct offers a reason to reconsider retirement. Senate Republicans should keep that in mind the next time Trump nominates someone like him to the federal bench.
24-07-2025
- Politics
Justice Elena Kagan criticizes pro-Trump rulings, court's lack of explanation
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Thursday publicly chided her conservative colleagues for deciding -- at least temporarily -- nearly a dozen consequential disputes over President Donald Trump's overhaul of the federal government without fulsome hearing or debate and often with little public explanation. "My own view is: be cautious," Kagan told a conference of federal judges from the Ninth Circuit about a recent wave of rulings on the so-called emergency docket. The cases in question -- involving funding freezes, federal worker layoffs and firing of members of independent agencies -- reached the court over the past six months when the justices were asked for snap judgments on the decisions of a lower court, without extensive briefing or oral argument, in an effort to protect a party from alleged imminent irreparable harm. In nearly every case, the court's conservative majority has sided with the Trump administration. Most recently on Wednesday, it allowed the president to terminate three Democrat-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The court's order offered a three-sentence explanation. "Courts are supposed to explain things, to litigants, to the public generally," Kagan said. "As we have done more and more on the emergency docket, there becomes a real responsibility to explain things better." The justice was cautious in addressing her peers, but she did suggest that elements of "good decision making" were lacking in many recent emergency rulings. "We have standards for that," she said. "I think we should apply those standards with care." Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week allowing Trump to move forward with a massive restructuring of the Department of Education, including sweeping staff reductions. The court's majority did not explain its decision. "A casual observer might think we said the president has the authority to dismantle [the agency]…. That [question] wasn't even before us," she said. "It puts the court in a very difficult situation." Kagan also lamented the proliferation of separate opinions across the bench -- when many of her colleagues write their own concurring opinions in major cases instead of letting the majority opinion speak for itself. She said she fears too many writers -- "just one or two guys trying to tell you they would have written it differently" -- in each case "dilutes" the message of the court. "My view is the court has many members, but it is an institution," she said. "It is a court. It speaks best when it speaks as a court, rather than a place when nine people get together and write individually." As for the frequent occasions in which Kagan is in dissent vis-à-vis the six-justice conservative majority, she said, "I don't enjoy that. I find it frustrating.I find it disappointing. I find it sometimes maddening." "How do I deal with that?" she asked. "Have to turn a page… You lose one day, then you continue to engage the next day."
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Democratic FTC Commissioner Quits—But That Doesn't Mean He's Dropping His Lawsuit
Alvaro Bedoya, former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), formally resigned on Monday after he and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the other Democrat-appointed commissioner, were fired by President Donald Trump in March. Bedoya and Slaughter have challenged the president in court, with Slaughter arguing that the firings violated "the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent." Although Bedoya and Slaughter will continue pursuing their legal challenge to the firings, Bedoya's pressured resignation represents a major blow to the security of independent agency executives. The Supreme Court precedent invoked by Bedoya and Slaughter is Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. (1935), which was prompted by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's attempted firing of FTC Commissioner William E. Humphrey, who former President Herbert Hoover had appointed to serve a second, seven-year term on the commission in 1931. The Court unanimously ruled against Roosevelt, finding that the president is not free to fire officers of those "quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies" created by Congress without cause. The president's ability to fire such officers at will "threatens the independence of a commission…as an agency of the legislative and judicial departments," thereby undermining the separation of powers codified in the Constitution. (The existence of executive agencies that simultaneously wield legislative and judicial powers is itself a blatant violation of this principle.) On Monday, Bedoya filed a supplemental declaration to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the court hearing his and Slaughter's case against the Trump administration) providing his reasons for formally resigning. Bedoya explained that he has been denied his wages as FTC commissioner following his firing and that, to comply with rules and regulations, he has not accepted other employment opportunities. Since Bedoya can "no longer afford to go without any source of income for [his] family," he resigned "out of an abundance" to pursue paid employment outside the agency. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan credited Bedoya with reviving the Robinson-Patman Act, which outlaws price discrimination, and thanked him for "his remarkable tenure" as an FTC commissioner and "his outstanding public service." She described Bedoya's resignation as "a huge loss." FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak—both of whom are named as defendants in Bedoya and Slaughter's lawsuit—have not yet spoken publicly about Bedoya's resignation, nor has the more recently appointed commissioner, Mark Meador. The partisan divisions between FTC commissioners belie claims of the very independence that the Supreme Court regarded as "essential [so] that the commission should not be open to the suspicion of partisan direction" in Humphrey's Executor. Regardless of the partisanship of the FTC and the constitutionality of Humphrey's Executor, the now-resigned commissioner is "still suing the President! Not dropping out of the lawsuit," Bedoya emphasized on X. The post Democratic FTC Commissioner Quits—But That Doesn't Mean He's Dropping His Lawsuit appeared first on
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
MAGA Turns On Amy Coney Barrett After She Sides With Liberal Justices Against Trump
Right-wing influencers are turning against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett after she voted against President Donald Trump's use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants. The conservative majority Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of the Trump administration on Monday, allowing it to enforce the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, but limited its authority to allow the accused 'reasonable time' to go to court and challenge the case against them. Barrett, who Trump appointed in 2020, joined Democrat-appointed Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in dissenting against the president's use of the act. Sotomayor called the majority decision 'suspect,' writing in the principal dissent that it ignored 'the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government's attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.' Though Barrett voted with the liberal justices, she only joined some portions of the dissent. Her name is included in a section that argues that someone subject to deportation must be notified, and one that criticizes the Supreme Court for hearing Trump's case as an emergency and overruling lower courts that had halted certain deportations. Barrett's vote has made her the target of attacks from many right-wing influencers on X, some of whom even went after her two adopted Black children. Conservative pundit and former Trump supporter Ann Coulter posted a photo showing the justice with her children and wrote, 'Who could've seen that coming?' Sam Parker, a MAGA Republican who ran for Senate in Utah in 2018, also posted a photo of Barrett's family, with the caption 'Who could have predicted Amy Coney Barrett would sell out her own people? If only there had been a sign.' Other conservative commentators joined the conversation, including Catturd — a MAGA personality with 3.6 million X followers — who called Barrett 'an absolute disgusting fraud.' 'Trump appointed her and gave her her dream job and complimented her and praised her - and she's been an ungrateful, backstabbing POS since day one,' the account wrote. And after Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called Barrett's dissent 'disappointing,' X owner and Trump adviser Elon Musk weighed in with his own opinion, writing, 'Suicidal empathy is a civilizational risk.' Ketanji Brown Jackson Issues Seething Dissent To Supreme Court's Hasty Migrant Ruling Supreme Court Lifts Order Blocking Deportations Under 18th Century Wartime Law Trump Dealt Another Legal Setback Over His Legally Dubious Firings
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Loses Bid to Pause Court Ruling on Spending Freeze
(Bloomberg) -- A court order blocking President Donald Trump's freeze on trillions of dollars in spending for grants, loans and other financial assistance will remain in place while the government challenges the ruling, an appeals court said. They Built a Secret Apartment in a Mall. Now the Mall Is Dying. Why Did the Government Declare War on My Adorable Tiny Truck? How SUVs Are Making Traffic Worse Trump Slashed International Aid. Geneva Is Feeling the Impact. Affordable Housing Developers Stalled by Blocked Federal Funds Trump's request to stay a lower court injunction was denied Wednesday by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the latest setback for the president in lawsuits over the chaotic and unprecedented spending freeze imposed by the White House in January. Payments must continue while the legal fight proceeds toward a potential trial, likely months away. The panel of three Democrat-appointed judges rejected the government's argument that the court cannot take into account the harm caused to the states' residents. Even if it did so, the panel held, the potential harm to the states themselves would be significant. 'These harms included the obligation of new debt; the inability to pay existing debt; impediments to planning, hiring, and operations; and disruptions to research projects by state universities,' the panel said. The nationwide preliminary injunction was issued March 6 by Chief US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island. The judge said the spending freeze had 'catastrophic consequences' that were still rippling through the country, and that a court order was necessary to keep the funds flowing. A similar nationwide injunction against the spending freeze was also handed down in a parallel suit filed by a group of nonprofit organizations in federal court in Washington. Trump is also appealing that decision. The suits in Rhode Island and Washington were filed in response to a January memo by the White House Office of Management and Budget that paused all federal spending on grants, loans and other payments that cover a vast array of expenditures for nonprofits and states. The memo said the freeze was required under provisions of Trump's executive orders on spending. OMB quickly withdrew the memo in response to the litigation. But McConnell said in an earlier ruling that the withdrawal appeared to be an effort to deprive the courts of a chance to block it, and that the spending freeze remained in effect. Only a court order could assure the spending freeze is blocked, the judge held. The states said in a filing with the appeals court that the Trump administration was likely to freeze federal funds once again if the stay was granted. The states said they presented evidence that 'categorical freezes' on some funds remained in effect in violation of the court's earlier order. In the Washington case, US District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled on Feb. 25 that the nonprofit groups that sued showed they faced the risk of 'economically catastrophic' effects without the block. The Trump administration 'cannot pretend that the nationwide chaos and paralysis from two weeks ago is some distant memory with no bearing on this case,' the judge wrote at the time. The case is New York v. Trump, 25-cv-39, US District Court, District of Rhode Island (Providence). (Updates with details from ruling, background on case.) Business Schools Are Back Google Is Searching for an Answer to ChatGPT The Richest Americans Kept the Economy Booming. What Happens When They Stop Spending? A New 'China Shock' Is Destroying Jobs Around the World How TD Became America's Most Convenient Bank for Money Launderers ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
